The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution.

Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwins theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.

All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community, said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.

The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.

Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.

In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.

Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of irreducible complexity shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.

"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.

Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.

In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.

''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.

The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question Can You Believe in God and Evolution? Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.

I have decided, like one rooting for the underdog in a football game, to oppose evolution

No disrespect meant, but by that logic, why not go the whole nine yards and go for the "underdog" theory of the Flat Earth? That way, angels can preside over the four corners of the Earth like Isaiah said. My only point here is that the foundations of solid science aren't backed by what appeals to us or what we "root for," but rather by the outcome of research, like the answer or not.

That I believe in God might be a factor as well

Many of us who acknowledge the science behind evolution believe in God; many of those specifically believe in the Bible. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. When polled, a majority of scientists have revealed they believe in God, but almost 100% of scientists acknowledge evolution.

We generally prefer not to rip peoples religion. But we would have to in order to use ID as a punching bag. ***So it would appear that the scientific community is refraining out of politeness? Would you mind commenting on JS1138's post:

Actually character assassination is part of any competitive enterprise. In sports it's called trash talk. Science is extremely competitive. If you want religion tossed int this environment, be my guest. It's about time religion got the chip off its shoulder and started duking it out in an arena where only physical evidence counts. ***It looks to me that the ID folks are ASKING for the chance to duke it out. I say, Let them in. Have at it.

This punching should be done in philosophy classes after the students have a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. ***I agree completely. Teach science in science classes, and philosophy in philosophy classes.

Bottom line untill someone comes up with a test that would prove ID false you can't call it science. ***I see it as a kind of analogy. Both sides are armies meeting across a river. Whichever army ventures across to the other side will have the extreme disadvantage. On the creat/ID side, they use inductive reasoning, a form of spiritual frequency domain. On the haps side they like to use deductive reasoning, not trusting that inductive stuff. But the haps army has the high ground and decides to dam the river every once in awhile, taking water for themselves & not leaving water for the other army. This is considered bad manners.

The equivilant test of evolution is finding a highly developed fossil in rock strata too old for it. Creationists attempted to disprove it with foot prints of men and dinosaurs in the same fossilized mud flat. Of course it turned out to be a big fat self-rightous creationist lie. Someone will be along shortly to claim it's all true. ***Well, so far no one has chimed in to claim that it's all true so maybe the ground rules have changed enough to have an intelligent debate with those folks. I'm not quite sure.

Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are. ***This is one of the dangers of the haps side of the evo philosophy. It takes experts to be able to discourse on the subject matter. So the attempt to teach children this stuff is really just an attempt at indoctrination, kinda like the NAMBLA guys trying to access youngsters with their thoughts on certain subjects. Now I grant that this isn't as spiritually dangerous as NAMBLA, but the hyperbole helps you to see that there is some danger there.

No, it really doesn't. The issue really isn't that complicated. You though have not attempted to even try to critique the science. You claim to be knowledgable on the sybject but have only shown you haven't a clue.

"So the attempt to teach children this stuff is really just an attempt at indoctrination, kinda like the NAMBLA guys trying to access youngsters with their thoughts on certain subjects."

Disgusting poisoning of the well. You should be ashamed (but won't, of course).

"Now I grant that this isn't as spiritually dangerous as NAMBLA, but the hyperbole helps you to see that there is some danger there."

No, it doesn't help us to see anything. All you have done is said *Evolution is bad*, without saying anything at all about the theory, or how it applies to society. You don't because you can't. Your willfull ignorance is your own problem, stop trying to stuff it down the throats of our children.

Just smoke coming from your butt.

105
posted on 09/20/2005 9:25:11 AM PDT
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science, you do not understand science, and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway. ***Wow, nice straw argumentation, Coyoteman. Now, instead of arguing against the straw position, why don't you argue against what I really said and stop putting words in my keyboard?

If this is the case, why should anyone who comes from the science side of the argument listen to a thing you have to say? ***Ok, we're in good shape then, because this is not the case. But if it were the case, I see your plan amounts to just not listenining. Ok, that's a good plan, very good plan, just ignore that large majority of voters & policy makers and continue on with what you were doing, make no attempt to engage in educating the masses, go ahead, go ahead....

I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution. ***Ok, good challenge. In a nutshell, evolution sees itself as a scientific deductive pursuit where facts are the overriding concern. The factual weight of the overall theory is gigantic. The main thing is that there was one common ancestor that all creatures descended from, and there even appears to be some genetic evidence for this. The mechanism for speciation is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Before life was formed, evo has nothing to say about that, the theory is one aimed at how species came about. In the evo theory, mankind is a species of ape that was smart and started to build tools to survive, passing this knowledge onto the next generation and gaining a significant foothold.

You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position. ***OK, go ahead and post your understanding. But what will that get us? The social policy stuff is really what I would prefer to discuss, and whether or not I understand that theory of yours isn't as significant as you make it out to be. Do evolutionists understand the OBVIOUS moral implications that their disturbing theory generates? If they did, they would probably state something like what Dinsdale says, "This punching should be done in philosophy classes after the students have a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. " If someone like me can't understand the theory well enough to pass muster in a forum like this, why is there an attempt to teach this to kids? That is indoctrination.

From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science, you do not understand science, and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway.

***Wow, nice straw argumentation, Coyoteman. Now, instead of arguing against the straw position, why don't you argue against what I really said and stop putting words in my keyboard?

If this is the case, why should anyone who comes from the science side of the argument listen to a thing you have to say?

***Ok, we're in good shape then, because this is not the case. But if it were the case, I see your plan amounts to just not listenining. Ok, that's a good plan, very good plan, just ignore that large majority of voters & policy makers and continue on with what you were doing, make no attempt to engage in educating the masses, go ahead, go ahead....

My comments were in response to your post #62.

Every time someone brings up science you turn it to a question of public or social policy. You consistently duck the science questions.

I think you actually explained the reason in another post:

I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself [from your post #76].

So, now where is my lead statement (repeated again below) wrong?

From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science, you do not understand science, and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway.

110
posted on 09/20/2005 9:58:31 AM PDT
by Coyoteman
(Is this a good tagline?)

Too bad, science is the center of this debate. ***As far as I'm concerned, the center of gravity of this debate has shifted to social policy, not whether one theory is a better scientific model than the other.

So, you really can't provide any scientific critiques of evolution. I didn't think you could. I don't see how you expect to bring anybody over to your side with no argument whatsoever. Not even an attempt. ***I'm happy with that. I'll leave that stuff to folks who appear to have more training than I do in your chosen fields of inquiry.

So, you look to the president for science? How odd. ***I look to the president for guidance on social policy, which in this case includes science teaching policy. It really isn't that odd, but thanks for the straw argument.

What problems? You refuse to even touch on the science, why should anybody care what you think? ***Why do you ask me to touch on such problems? I choose to be a lurker in that regard because there is a certain point where I simply do not understand what EITHER side is saying. It's eggheads arguing with eggheads. If you will ONLY engage in debating social policy with people who understand the theory, you miss a huge segment of the population who have a thing or two to say on the subject. Who is it that determines such policies? Is it PhD biochemists? There simply aren't enough of them. It's normal workaday folks who have a heart for what gets taught to our kids. So, by all means, bypass me and folks like me and continue your egghead discussions.

Your *Baloney* means nothing when you hide from discussing the science. Just more smoke out yer butt. ***I see several people on this forum discussing the science, so take that up with them, they seem to know what they're doing. I'm not hiding, just expressing a preference about what I choose to engage in arguing about. I see that eggheads have been arguing with eachother for 150 years over this subject, and to be candid, I'm just not interested in wasting my time on it. The social policy stuff strikes me as important, so that's what I want to spend time on. As far as your insult, do you prefer blue smoke or white smoke?

Are you capable of understanding English? ***Yes. What did you not comprehend? ***If I sit down and go through some scientific egghead junk about supernatural, non-material causes, I waste my time. The big bang theory is one. What caused it? Some force that's above nature (supernatural) that we don't really have material information about, but it happened that way. Gravity theory. What causes it? We can describe its effects, but we don't know what causes it, it appears to be "non-material". But I would rather not talk about such things because they detract from what I choose to talk about, which is the social policy angle.

So you want science by poll. ***That's not what I said, don't put words in my mouth.

And 2/3rds of the population do NOT want evolution out of the classrooms. ***Again, that's not what I said. 2/3 of the population want them taught side-by-side, and the haps folks appear to be frightened by this prospect.

False dichotomy. Show how science is making people *amoral*. ***Very good, that's what I was thinking about it when I wrote it and it slipped my mind that I should have qualified it as a forced choice. For your second sentence, I will offer primary source material: Myself. The way that I processed the evo theory was that I saw justifications for bad behavior and could even condone murder if it "furthered the species". Scientists like to stop right there, and say this is how far the science goes, we don't have anything to say from this point on. The folks who deal with dangerous philosophies and religions take it from there and start to point out the disturbing moral implications to the theory, and science says that it is outside of its realm. Fine, so be it. Let the folks who deal with inductive stuff take over from here and push positive things onto society. If you don't like the social policies that they come up with, then start dealing with them on the social policy level and acknowledge the disturbing social implications of the theory, limit whatever evil arises from it and amplify whatever good comes from it.

I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself. If you folks are discussing science on this thread, please ask me to leave. Tempting... But no, nobody should be asked to leave. This is FR! ***Darn, I thought I could sucker someone into actually going down that path. That would have been fun.

The problem is that we need to keep science and its methods separate from belief and their ways. ***Well, maybe you have something there. Why can't we set up a philosophy class that investigates the implications of science and religion and let the discussion take place there? I would have loved to have been empowered to steer my professors, "shut up and teach. This isn't a philosophy class, stick to [fillintheblank]. "

Science works from data and theory, with theory being the attempts to explain those pesky facts (data). Sometimes theories have to change when new facts arise, or when better theory emerges.Belief is unchanging, and based on faith. The two really are separate and should not be used to argue against one another. ***There is a faith element in the evo/abio side as well: at the point of unknown.

You say you don't have time to study science and then proceed to trash science and its methods. Then don't enter into science-bashing. ***Good point. I suppose that has been some bad manners on my part. It is how I feel. Let me know if I'm expected to apologize. I did enter into the crevo threads with my hackles raised due to the level of trash talk & acrimony, but that doesn't mean we have to keep it that way.

But don't leave an FR thread (especially an old fossil like yourself!) because of something like this. ; ) ***We really would have had an juicy thread going if you had given in to your temptation.

If you want to have a discussion, don't mix quotes from two different posters. ***It saves time. It would also be nice to learn to put quotes in italics. Try this: text in italics

new paragraph ***I gave up on italicising several years ago. When it gets to the point that I can copy a paragraph and paste it back into MSWord and/or into a post/preview window at FR and the italics survive, I will re-learn it.

Whether evolution or ID are better scientifically is the HEART of the debate. No matter what your opinion might be. ***The HEART of the debate is what is good for us as a society and what should be taught to our children.

Or you could just refrain from talking about things you know nothing about. ***I'm here to discuss social policy, not the minute details of a theory that I don't care much about. I know as much as others who make policy know about this subject.

Yet you feel free to make ludicrous statements about the social consequences of a theory you admit to having no understanding of. ***NO understanding? A bit of an exxageration, isn't it? And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? As far as ludicrous thingie, good insult. Good Holy Warrior. Comfort yourself.

Why do you say it is *above* nature and therefore supernatural? This is nutty. ***First 2 entries for "supernatural" at Dictionary.com: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Super comes from the word that means Above, and natural, is...well... nature. How is that nutty? I see that you didn't bother to insert some egghead scientific stuff here, so does that mean I can't expect it from you on this subject?

It's exactly what you want. ***That's not what I want, so stop trying to read my mind. Just read my posts.

You want Joe six-pack with no understanding of the science (like you) making decisions on what is or isn't science. ***Wrong. Straw argument, and it even ignores what I posted about the subject, which I reproduce here: Ok, I'll answer your question, feel free for the sake of those honest and genuine lurkers, to IGNORE my question. The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise. The social policy implications are fascinating. SHOULD we let Astrologers into Astronomy classes? At what point is a fun pursuit a pseudoscience? From all the evidence I've looked at on both sides, I do not think that ID rises to the same level of pseudoscience that Astrology does. So, what should be the critera for establishing that something is a pseudoscience? I happen to think that when one of my professors bloviated about haps-based evolution, she was crossing the same kind of line.

Stop hiding from your own arguments. ***Stop using straw arguments.

Then you know nothing of what evolution says, just as we figured. ***The plain and simple fact is, this is how some young evolutionists process the moral implications of the theory. Maybe they know enough, maybe they don't. If the theory itself is so sophisticated that youngsters can't process it properly when it gets applied to their own behavior, then it has no business being taught to impressionable kids. It belongs in a 2nd or 3rd year bio class for bio majors and maybe philosophy majors.

The species is not the unit of selection. It is an explanation of what is and what has happened, not a proscription for behavior. ***Yeah, I've heard that one before, in the islamofascist community. Here's how it goes... "Now, kids, whatever you do, never [wink wink] ever [wink wink] point one of these rocket propelled grenades at a SLIMY, Baby-eating, pig-worshipping [note no winking here] american convoy [wink wink] or Allah will be very [wink wink] displeased." And to both of them I say, bull cookies. There are obvious moral implications to this theory that need to be dealt with if you guys want it to be taught to impressionable kids.

All smoke, no substance. It's hard to tell if you are trying to come off sounding as ignorant as possible as a joke or you really mean it. ***I get that a lot.

"The HEART of the debate is what is good for us as a society and what should be taught to our children."

Don't you think that the subject matter being taught is germane to whether that subject matter should be taught? Are you really that dense?

"I'm here to discuss social policy, not the minute details of a theory that I don't care much about. I know as much as others who make policy know about this subject."

That's a scary thought. You are arguing that your total ignorance of the subject makes you just as qualified to discuss whether it should be taught or not than those who actually have studied it. Incredible.

"NO understanding? A bit of an exxageration, isn't it? "

Not at all. It's being kind.

"And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? "

So anything YOU can't understand shouldn't be taught? Your ignorance should be everybody's?

"That's not what I want, so stop trying to read my mind. Just read my posts."

I have. You want science by poll. Stop hiding from your arguments.

"The plain and simple fact is, this is how some young evolutionists process the moral implications of the theory."

Some people took Einstein's theory of relativity to mean that all morality is relative. Was it Einstein's fault that some people are stupid? Just because some people who know next to nothing about evolution completely misunderstand the implications doesn't in any way mean that there is any problem with the theory on a scientific level. Why should we lie to our children that there is a scientific controversy because people like you are ignorant?

"If the theory itself is so sophisticated that youngsters can't process it properly when it gets applied to their own behavior, then it has no business being taught to impressionable kids."

It has nothing to do with their behavior. It is not applied to their behavior. Just because it is too sophisticated for YOU, doesn't mean that the average 12 year old won't get it.

"The species is not the unit of selection. It is an explanation of what is and what has happened, not a proscription for behavior. ***Yeah, I've heard that one before, in the islamofascist community. "

Your smearing of evolution by associating it with child molesters and now Islamo-terrorists is a disgusting display, indicative of the paucity of your evidence (and very telling about your character). Unless you have something of substance to critique about the theory, none of your opinions count for anything.

"All smoke, no substance. It's hard to tell if you are trying to come off sounding as ignorant as possible as a joke or you really mean it. ***I get that a lot. "

I am certain you do. I for one don't believe it's a joke.

119
posted on 09/20/2005 11:15:02 AM PDT
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

Type or copy the text of your post into the box, hit the spell checker and apply corrections. Magically the paragraph html will be inserted. Then you can apply formatting like italics without having to do all the paragraph formatting.

120
posted on 09/20/2005 11:28:56 AM PDT
by js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)

You have not shown you even know what the theory says. Smoke is still rising from your butt. ***It will probably never be to your satisfaction anyways, so I choose not to waste my time at it. Do you prefer blue or white smoke?

You haven't shown the least inclination in wanting to know anything about evolution. ***You kinda got that part right. There was a time when I was fascinated by Velikovsky and I tried to wrestle with his theory. But it takes an expert in 5 different areas to really know whether it holds any water, and eventually I ran across Carl Sagans treatment of Velikovsky, it seemed like enough that I could form an opinion based upon both sides. The whole process took way too long. My frustration with the evo theory is that you need to be an expert in more than 5 different areas, and I dont wanna go there. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it ain't a goose; it's probably a duck. The duck is a scientific squabble. It sure looks like a scientific squabble to me.

You want to discuss the politics of a science debate without any mention of the science. That is impossible. ***Did George Bush suddenly become a PhD biochemist? He discussed the politics of a science debate and didnt have to get peer reviewed for some research proposal, so why is that level of knowledge required of an average freeper? When freepers run for the school board and help determine the curriculum of the school, are they required to be PhDs in each area of inquiry to decide on what the curriculum should be? No. Therefore the level of knowledge required is not necessarily PhD level biochemistry nuances, and I choose not to go down that path. It is not impossible. George did it, the average school board member does it, and so can I.

The speed of light is still constant and hasn't changed. What are you talking about? ***Here you go, for starters:

You[r] only argument has been that Bush and Reagan like ID so we must take it seriously as science. ***No, my argument is that Bush & Reagan like ID and so we should take it seriously when examining the social policies surrounding the teaching of science and other subjects.

You DO know that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, right? Especially when they have no science backgrounds. ***Since I dont see them as scientific authorities, that is not my argument and Im not using that fallacy. I see them as social policy authorities who consulted scientific authorities in their decisions. This argument from authority has its fallacy showing from another angle: Since I am not an authority in bio/chem/astronomy, folks here seem to have decided that my opinion holds no weight on a social policy issue.

You are way, WAY out of your league. ***I know that. Thats why I choose not to engage on the scientific end of the argument. Go argue with someone else who knows what theyre doing when it comes to that stuff.

Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you? ***Would that work? Ohhh pleaaaase stooopppp riiiidiiiicuulllinnnggg meeeeee. I doubt it. What is the level of operating that makes you folks decide that youre going to ridicule them rather than answer their questions and deal with the points they bring up? This is, after all, a political website and not a science website. That might actually be a useful faq to put up on Patrick Henrys page. And I might as well point out, for your sakes, that there are a bunch of lurkers who probably think like me. They might just decide to pass on the debate and then 20 years from now, theyre in a position of authority deciding what the curriculum should be and the evo guys would be still wondering what happened.

Well, theres your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory. ***Weve covered this before. Copout. At the point of unknown, evo/creat/ID/abio/FengShui  theyre all philosophies. Either come to the table and deal with the reality presented on the level of philosophy, or be bypassed by this generation of lurkers who would just as soon go home and watch Homer Simpson and then vote for ID being taught side-by-side at the next School Board Meeting.

If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui? ***If you guys continue to blindly whistle past this gaping hole in your position, dont be surprised if someone comes in and sets up shop there. There are philosophical elements to this evo/abio theory and they aren't going away. That is the source of much of your opposition.

If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology. ***Good Point.

At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID. ***And yet, GWB seemed to overlook what his science advisors inputs when it came to that how and why do you think that happened? Did his political instincts override his deductive scientific leaning? Probably. That would mean that he perceives this whole debate as a bunch of eggheads arguing with each other over the finer points of some scientific squabble. His concern would be whether thats good for society and whether the republican party can mine it for votes in the future, plus probably some other concerns.

Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy. ***Here is where we differ. I see the haps side of evo/abio as a philosophy, and the teaching of evolution is the subject of social policy. I believe that a meaningful majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate.

Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory? ***Go ahead, knock yourselves out with all those other freepers who seem to know what they are doing. I am trying to limit my time and effort in a focused manner.

Don't you think that the subject matter being taught is germane to whether that subject matter should be taught? Are you really that dense? ***When freepers run for the school board and help determine the curriculum of the school, are they required to be PhDs in each area of inquiry to decide on what the curriculum should be? No. Therefore the level of knowledge required is not necessarily PhD level biochemistry nuances, and I choose not to go down that path. George did it, the average school board member does it, and so can I. Look at Math. Does the average school board member know anything about differential equations? Probably not, but it doesnt stop them from deciding on whats best for kids math curriculum. Why do you try to impose this level of authority in subject matter on average freepers when that is not required of school boards, the president, nor other policy makers, and especially in such a controversial subject matter?

"I'm here to discuss social policy, not the minute details of a theory that I don't care much about. I know as much as others who make policy know about this subject." .That's a scary thought. ***I see some of what Im saying is starting to sink in. A scary thought. Kind of like 12 jurors on the OJ trial ignoring all that DNA evidence. Those 12 jurors have 12 votes in making policy just like 12 PhD biochemists. The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys. Now that some reality is starting to kick in, what would be best for teaching our children about evolution/ID? I think it is an advanced theory that should be reserved for advanced bio and philosophy, and we should stick to bringing those 12 jurors kids up to speed on the basics for this next generation. They need it. A real scary thought is that once the evo crowd realizes the bind that theyre in, they wont focus on all 12 of those kids, but only 2/7 of them so that they can regain a majority in the policy making realm. A sad form of educational elitism.

You are arguing that your total ignorance of the subject makes you just as qualified to discuss whether it should be taught or not than those who actually have studied it. Incredible. ***How would that look? Like this? I am totally Ignorant of Math and History, so I dont think that anyone else should know about it either. I suppose thats what it would look like. But thats not what I wrote, so that means youre using a straw argument. And furthermore, the subjects of Math & History dont have the spiritual vacuity that the haps side of evo/abio does at this time. What exactly are the requirements for someone to discuss social policy? Are they written somewhere on Patrick Henrys page? Is it a special secret decoder ring-enabled site here on Free Republic that I havent been aware of? The current requirement for someone on a school board is that they care enough to show up and get elected. If FR suddenly has a higher requirement than the average school board, I would like to know. If not, then youre imposing an artificial encumbrance to discussion of this policy issue.

Not at all. It's being kind. ***Then allow me to say that you are too kind.

"And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? " So anything YOU can't understand shouldn't be taught? Your ignorance should be everybody's? ***Once again, some straw argumentation. Did I say dont teach ANYTHING I cant understand? No. I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesnt mean I suggest that others shouldnt learn it. And nowhere do I say that evo should NOT be taught, just that we should limit the negative spiritual effects that this soulless philosophy has on youngsters. I agree that evo/abio should be taught side by side with ID, I dont see the harm in it, I see it would be good for society and the net result would be good for most people involved.

"That's not what I want, so stop trying to read my mind. Just read my posts." I have. You want science by poll. Stop hiding from your arguments. ***Back & forth, same thing . BORING. Tell me what I think of my neighbor and I will give you the necessary credit needed to read my mind. Tell me what I want for dinner and I will listen to what you have to say about what I want regarding this issue. Better yet, why don't you just read what I wrote instead of this baloney.

"The plain and simple fact is, this is how some young evolutionists process the moral implications of the theory." Some people took Einstein's theory of relativity to mean that all morality is relative. Was it Einstein's fault that some people are stupid? ***Ok, lets work with that analogy. There was this kid named John Aristotle Phillips who wrote "Mushroom: The Story of the A-Bomb Kid." He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einsteins fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes. I see the haps/evo stuff as a spiritual form of this story, and I think we need to limit the negative effects that can result from it.

Just because some people who know next to nothing about evolution completely misunderstand the implications doesn't in any way mean that there is any problem with the theory on a scientific level. ***Was there anything wrong with Phillips study on the scientific level? No, and yet we see the need to control it and at the time to keep it out of Pakistani hands. I see the need to control this spiritually dangerous teaching that might possibly radiate amoral behavior.

Why should we lie to our children that there is a scientific controversy because people like you are ignorant? ***Im not lying to my children, I do see a scientific controversy and I suspect so did GWB when he came out with his policy. There is also a political controversy mixed in with it. They are becoming more interlaced with each passing day.

It has nothing to do with their behavior. It is not applied to their behavior. ***And again I say COPOUT. There are obvious spiritual and social implications to the theory and those implications wont go away if you just keep poking your head in the sand.

Just because it is too sophisticated for YOU, doesn't mean that the average 12 year old won't get it. ***Wow, really? You honestly think that the average 12 year old can process this kind of information in an edifying way? The average ADULT doesnt know what a molecule is, and you think the average 12 year old can mentally wrestle with this spiritually dangerous philosophy? You have a very high opinion of the average 12 year old, and if that were the case I might agree with you. But since the average 12 year old cant find Germany on a map, I dont think theyre ready for this stuff.

Your smearing of evolution by associating it with child molesters and now Islamo-terrorists is a disgusting display, indicative of the paucity of your evidence (and very telling about your character). ***Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole. You're starting to get a little shrill, an interesting sign. You might want to reduce your caffeine intake and add fiber to your diet. And I didnt ASSOCIATE the two, I was using ANALOGY. From Dictionary.com

analogy P Pronunciation Key ( -n l -j ) n. pl. analogies 1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness. 2. Biology. Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure. 3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects. 4. Linguistics. The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.

Unless you have something of substance to critique about the theory, none of your opinions count for anything. ***A form of appeal to authority fallacy. Only those high priests worthy enough may engage in discourse on this subject, all other cretins must stay silent.

Thats why I choose not to engage on the scientific end of the argument....Then why do you? ***I'm operating at the level I'm comfortable with. You don't see stuff from me about the finer nuances of protein sequencing because I don't know that stuff. It looks fascinating, though.

You just stated in post #123 "Thats why I choose not to engage on the scientific end of the argument."

And here you are already again engaging in the scientific end of the argument.

***I see a scientific controversy raging around global warming and one around the safe levels of radioactivity and another around how much milk we should drink. That doesn't mean that I intend to get into the finer points of acidophilous cultures.

You have repeatedly called the TOE a religion. Then you say there's a scientific controversy about it, but you don't want to get into the 'science' end of it. Sorry, there is no basis for a rational discussion here.

I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself [from your post #76].

From this post, you have declared that you do not believe science, ***No, I'm just trying to stay away from it because it looks overwhelming in how much time it's going to take. Do you think the 12 OJ jurors "believed science"? That's an interesting choice of terminology, more suited for a philosophical inquiry rather than a scientific one.

you do not understand science, ***There's some truth to that, and some falsehood. I have a BSEE, so I think that's enough to know some scientific method, but not enough to engage in the crevo threads. GWB changed all that when he came out with his position, so I feel I can engage on the level of social policy and leave the science egghead stuff to the folks who are already doing it.

and if you did it wouldn't matter anyway. ***Probably wrong, but it appears to be conjecture anyways.

Every time someone brings up science you turn it to a question of public or social policy. You consistently duck the science questions. ***That's because I consider this to be a social policy issue. A school board member doesn't need to be a PhD mathemetician to be able to decide on the math curriculum for the local school, and the same should hold true for this scientific endeavor/philosophy. Send your science questions to the other eggheads on this forum who appear to be doing a good job answering that stuff. If there are some real zingers, I'll take notice, assuming I have the time.

When there is a basic unreconcilable difference, no answer is adequate and any attempt is a waste of effort. ***That's interesting to know. Now that this has become a public policy discussion, when one side disengages, there are more consequences than before. You lose that chance to educate the public.

The only purpose is to inform/convince the lurkers. ***That may have been true before, but the definition of lurkers has just changed and expanded to include that 2/3 of the general public that agrees the two philosophies should be taught side by side.

There are no more on this thread. It is a dead thread. Bye ***Good enough. I may be new to crevo threads, but I'm no newbie to FR. In my experience, people disengage when they have no more to say, and can't come up with strong enough rebuttals.

You offer no rebuttal. Just a repeat of your last word in a past discussion on another thread where you refused to concede there is not a controversy in the scientific community when 99+% of scientists support the TOE.

"When freepers run for the school board and help determine the curriculum of the school, are they required to be PhDs in each area of inquiry to decide on what the curriculum should be?"

No, and, so what? They ARE required to actually talk about the subjects they are dealing with and not just hand-wave the subjects aside. If the school board is debating which Math text to use, don't you think they should debate the merits of the competing texts? You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true.

"Why do you try to impose this level of authority in subject matter on average freepers when that is not required of school boards, the president, nor other policy makers, and especially in such a controversial subject matter?"

A basic understanding of the subject and a willingness to discuss some of the details of that subject are a definite requirement. If school boards and other policy makers don't want to talk about the specifics of a theory they appose, then they have no leg to stand on.

"The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys."

They'll be a lot more if we lie to students and teach them that creationism is a scientific theory.

"Like this? I am totally Ignorant of Math and History, so I dont think that anyone else should know about it either. I suppose thats what it would look like. But thats not what I wrote, so that means youre using a straw argument."

No, that is exactly what you wrote. You said,

" "And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ""

Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to.

"And furthermore, the subjects of Math & History dont have the spiritual vacuity that the haps side of evo/abio does at this time."

Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide.

"What exactly are the requirements for someone to discuss social policy? "

A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse.

""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? " So anything YOU can't understand shouldn't be taught? Your ignorance should be everybody's? ***Once again, some straw argumentation. Did I say dont teach ANYTHING I cant understand? No"

Yes, you did. Read your own words.

"I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesnt mean I suggest that others shouldnt learn it."

Yes you did. You said ""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ". Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean our kids have to be too.

"And nowhere do I say that evo should NOT be taught, just that we should limit the negative spiritual effects that this soulless philosophy has on youngsters."

What affects? You refuse to discuss the theory, why should we take your word there are *negative spiritual effects*. Explain them, with reference to what the theory says.

"Better yet, why don't you just read what I wrote instead of this baloney. "

Ok, you want science by polls. By votes. You want people who don't wish to know anything about a theory decide whether that theory is sound or not. You pride yourself in not caring about the science. You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney.

"He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einsteins fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes"

No, there isn't. You want to limit the teaching of the theory of relativity, you do it with your kids. Let the rest of the countries children know about it.

Please tell us, what other theories that you have very little knowledge of do you deem too *dangerous* to be taught?

"Was there anything wrong with Phillips study on the scientific level? No, and yet we see the need to control it and at the time to keep it out of Pakistani hands. I see the need to control this spiritually dangerous teaching that might possibly radiate amoral behavior."

What spiritually dangerous teaching? E=mc^2?

"Im not lying to my children, I do see a scientific controversy and I suspect so did GWB when he came out with his policy. "

You refuse to expand on the *scientific* controversy, after repeated pressing. Put up or shut up. That's the scientific method. BTW, Bush's science adviser has come out against teaching ID.

"And again I say COPOUT. There are obvious spiritual and social implications to the theory and those implications wont go away if you just keep poking your head in the sand."

And you saying there are *spiritual problems* without addressing how specifically the theory produces them is just smoke blowing from your butt.

"You honestly think that the average 12 year old can process this kind of information in an edifying way? The average ADULT doesnt know what a molecule is, and you think the average 12 year old can mentally wrestle with this spiritually dangerous philosophy?"

The average kid is a lot smarter then you. Don't use your admitted ignorance as a yardstick for what other's can do.

"Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. "

Do you know how ironic your above statement is?

"I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole."

Yet you just happened to bring them in to the conversation. Riiiight.

"And I didnt ASSOCIATE the two, I was using ANALOGY."

Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy.

"Unless you have something of substance to critique about the theory, none of your opinions count for anything. ***A form of appeal to authority fallacy. Only those high priests worthy enough may engage in discourse on this subject, all other cretins must stay silent."

Nonsense. I appealed to no authority. You HAVEN'T engaged in discourse on this subject, you have evaded the core of the debate, which is the scientific merits of evolution and ID. Utterly pathetic.

139
posted on 09/20/2005 4:07:42 PM PDT
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

Please follow the entire train of thought. Start @ #6, to #34, to #71 to #89 and to #94.

Your logic does no disrespect to me, only to yourself; when you use an example of a proven theory vs. a debunked one to elevate an unproven one over an unproven one. There is no proof of evolution - there is alot of inference - but no proof.

At it's peak nearly 100% of scientist acknowledged the earth was flat, that did not make it so.

Since a preponderance of academia voted for John Kerry, I guess I should have too.

140
posted on 09/20/2005 4:13:04 PM PDT
by TheHound
(You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)

... where you refused to concede ***And I still refuse to concede that point. I see a scientific controversy raging around global warming and one around the safe levels of radioactivity and another around how much milk we should drink and one around crevo. The milk guys don't expect you to know the finer points of endocrinology of lactose intolerance in order to engage in discussion.

At the point of unknown, evo/creat/ID/abio/FengShui  theyre all philosophies

I'm sure you intended this to be English. Want to try again? At the point of unknown what?

There are philosophical elements to this evo/abio theory and they aren't going away.

Why do you combine evolution and abiogenesis? And please identify in what respect they are philosophical, in a way that other areas of science are not.

And yet, GWB seemed to overlook what his science advisors inputs when it came to that how and why do you think that happened? Did his political instincts override his deductive scientific leaning? Probably.

That's too bad. I voted for him because I believed he wasn't merely a creature of political expediency

I see the haps side of evo/abio as a philosophy, and the teaching of evolution is the subject of social policy. I believe that a meaningful majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate.

Which you have repeatedly called a religion. You have said it is dangerous.

And at the same time you claim there is a controversy about it 'raging' in the 'scientific community' when 99+% of scientists support it, fully, and oppose the teaching of ID because it isn't science. But you don't want to get into the 'science' part of it.

It's very difficult to have a debate about science education policy when one side refuses to talk about the science. I think he is hopeless. I have had my fill of his evasiveness, his grouping nambla, islamo-fascists and evolutionists. Debate with him at the peril of your sanity.

145
posted on 09/20/2005 4:57:50 PM PDT
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

They ARE required to actually talk about the subjects they are dealing with and not just hand-wave the subjects aside. ***So a guy with a BS in Art History will need to know how much math in order to be qualified to discuss it on a school board? None. He doesnt even need to have that Art History degree. He handwaves when the technical stuff comes along. If you want to set up a system where only people who have certain knowledge can enter the debate, by all means do so and get it posted. But I dont see that on FR. I dont see GWB getting a biochem degree overnight, but he was able to discuss policy decisions. You guys are trying to set up a priesthood.

If the school board is debating which Math text to use, don't you think they should debate the merits of the competing texts? ***What can I say other than ABSOLUTELY. And if enough parents want 2 sets of math books to be presented to their kids, for whatever goofy reason, it should be allowable as long as it doesnt cause harm to society.

You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true. ***Show me where there is that requirement here on FR and I will follow it. This appears to be some unwritten rule that you guys have been following, and youve been ridiculing anyone who cant stand up to some nebulous technical standard. You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.

A basic understanding of the subject and a willingness to discuss some of the details of that subject are a definite requirement. If school boards and other policy makers don't want to talk about the specifics of a theory they appose, then they have no leg to stand on. ***If a school board is made up of all art history majors, theyll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff. Thats just human nature. That is analogous to the situation you have here. If this is a definite requirement for entering crevo threads, show me where it is written by the mods or JimRob and I will follow whatever is considered to be the correct norm. Until then, Im gonna stick around.

"The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys." They'll be a lot more if we lie to students and teach them that creationism is a scientific theory. ***There will be a lot fewer if we teach both sides congruently.

Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to. ***Oh, thats a good, zippy one liner. Your callousness should not be the level we strive to when we teach our children. Sorry, Im just not as crisp as you when it comes to one liners.

Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide. ***Ok. A garden left to itself will grow weeds. This area of concern, where kids will process the evo information in an unhealthy manner by default, is due to the fact that Science stops right at the point where the moral implications start to arise. The lack of a moral guide is like having the lack of a gardener, the default position is moral weeds.

A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse. ***I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children. But like the art history laden school board, the level of expertise has its limits.

"I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesnt mean I suggest that others shouldnt learn it."

Yes you did. ***Um, no I didnt.

You said ""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ". Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean our kids have to be too. ***Im not ignorant. I know enough about the theory to have gotten this far and close down a couple of crevo threads. I just dont agree with you. Is your assumption that just because someone doesnt agree with you, theyre ignorant? What do you think happened when the eggheads tried to get into the finer points of protein sequencing with GWB? He probably handwaved it, said he didnt have the time, and said that as long as both sides are using science to bolster their points, it appears to be a scientific controversy. That works for me.

What affects? You refuse to discuss the theory, why should we take your word there are *negative spiritual effects*. Explain them, with reference to what the theory says. ***I did explain a few of them, from my own personal experience. I know they exist because I experienced them for myself. Youre right, you shouldnt just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor. You might find that that 2/3 majority has a few things to say along these lines. I imagine that this is the area where I have a lot of work ahead of me.

Ok, you want science by polls. ***Again. BORING. Over & over. You keep telling me what I want and I know that it isnt what I want, it is even posted. If I post three more times that it isnt what I want, will that take care of the next 3 reiterations? Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls mystery, Babylon to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow? I didnt see that you wrote that, but hey, as long as you can tell me what I want then why cant I tell you what you want?

By votes. You want people who don't wish to know anything about a theory decide whether that theory is sound or not. ***Once again, NO.

You pride yourself in not caring about the science. ***No. I wish I had the time. I actually like science. I dont like scientism.

You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney. ***Time for a bran muffin and decaf. Geez, get ahold of yourself. You presume to tell me what I think?

"He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einsteins fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes" .No, there isn't. You want to limit the teaching of the theory of relativity, you do it with your kids. Let the rest of the countries children know about it. ***Wow, youve really gone off the deep end here. Are you incapable of reasoning from an analogy, even one that you introduced?

Please tell us, what other theories that you have very little knowledge of do you deem too *dangerous* to be taught? ***Oh, ok, thanks for asking ;-) That Lyndon Larouche stuff seemed dangerous to me. Scientology. . Zero point energy. est. Islamofascism. That comet/spaceship thingie. Electrogravitics might be on the listAstrology. Satanism. Thatll do for starters.

What spiritually dangerous teaching? E=mc^2? ***The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we cant control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. Theres more, but Im running out of time.

"

You refuse to expand on the *scientific* controversy, after repeated pressing. ***And I will probably never expand on the scientific controversy surrounding global warming because the subject is too vast to tackle for me at this point in time. That doesnt stop people from engaging in discussions about SUVs and pollutants. Same goes for certain areas of the evo controversy.

Put up or shut up. That's the scientific method. BTW, Bush's science adviser has come out against teaching ID. ***I know Bushs science advisor came out against teaching ID. Thats why it caught me by surprise when GWB came out with his position. Apparently there was not enough evidence to sway George from his confirmatory bias. I find that very intriguing. Do you think its because the science advisor didnt give him enough information on protein sequencing? Or maybe it was that fine structure constant thingie, maybe he wasnt up to speed on that? I guess its possible that even top-level PhD science advisors might not know enough to sway some VIPs opinion, so I figure Im in the clear for awhile. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.

And you saying there are *spiritual problems* without addressing how specifically the theory produces them is just smoke blowing from your butt. ***I imagine Ill get around to those spiritual issues when it seems like the right time.

The average kid is a lot smarter then you. ***Ill keep that in mind.

Don't use your admitted ignorance as a yardstick for what other's can do. ***Pretty good one liner. Thats others, no apostrophe.

"Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. " Do you know how ironic your above statement is? ***Glad you caught that. But when did I question your character?

"I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole." Yet you just happened to bring them in to the conversation. Riiiight. ***I guess I dont see your point here. I saw an analogous parallel and went with it. You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo arent as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.

Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy. ***And yet you do not address the points brought up in the analogy, even though youve been shown to be wrong that I wasnt using Association. But your colorful language is enjoyable, keep up the good work.

Nonsense. I appealed to no authority. ***Sure you do. The authority of knowledge in the subject matter, that someone who doesnt know as much as [whatever yardstick, note that this isnt written down anywhere I can find] should not be engaging in these social policy debates.

You HAVEN'T engaged in discourse on this subject, you have evaded the core of the debate, which is the scientific merits of evolution and ID. Utterly pathetic. ***The core of the debate is what should we teach our children, and I have engaged. The core is not how much I know about evolution, thus I choose not to engage there for the most part. If you want to engage others on what you consider to be the core, go ahead.

"***Yeah, I've heard that one before, in the islamofascist community. Here's how it goes... "Now, kids, whatever you do, never [wink wink] ever [wink wink] point one of these rocket propelled grenades at a SLIMY, Baby-eating, pig-worshipping [note no winking here] american convoy [wink wink] or Allah will be very [wink wink] displeased." And to both of them I say, bull cookies. There are obvious moral implications to this theory that need to be dealt with if you guys want it to be taught to impressionable kids."

149
posted on 09/20/2005 5:28:14 PM PDT
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.

I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children.

Youre right, you shouldnt just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor.

Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls mystery, Babylon to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?

The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we cant control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. Theres more, but Im running out of time.

I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.

You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo arent as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.